Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags
(3 edits) (+1)

Just to add here, I have to agree with you!

REAL physical money (hard cash) is also used by criminals, WAY even more so than crypto, per $...

...and in terms of resource use / harmful fossil fuel use - normal physical currency (coin minting, cleaning, transporting back and forth, destroying, re-creating, not to mention banknotes, creating, cleaning, destroying etc) - the process for NORMAL currency to be created, and actually used, stored, transported etc ALL uses 'harmful fossil fuel' energy (or worse!) in some form.

I really don't like hearing one-sided arguments, so felt the need to balance this up.

Having said that, to answer your original post - It would be cool, but I still feel that 99% of crypto is WAY too volatile to purchase stuff *without* having the vendor change it to a stable coin once paid in, unless they have a REALLY good feeling about that market, but in terms of @WTF's point about the ecology, I have to disagree, in your favour.

Some people seem terrified of what Crypto can be (ab!)used for, but the fact is that institutions have been able to monitor, dictate, tax, syphon funds, and generally abuse the existing financial markets (and customers), blow BILLIONS on known bad deals / transactions, yet award themselves 100's of millions in bonuses, and track everything *YOU* do, by linking your account, personal details, etc, and following card purchases, payments etc.

This level of monitoring and control is beyond any legitimately required, so it's no surprise that lots of people are embracing the anonymity that crypto transactions and crypto markets in general provide, for completely legitimate reasons.


TL;DR   ....So yes, I think crypto currencies ARE the future (if the governments of the world, and banking/financial institutions aren't allowed to outlaw it somehow - and even then..  ;)  ), but sadly at present I'd say that it's too volatile to use for everyday purchases - like others also mentioned, the GOOD thing about is is that it generally changes price more rapidly (making it desirable for shorter term investments, vs. historical markets), but then people don't want to spend it if they think it will rise, and don't want to sell it at a loss - it's difficult to justify purchasing stuff with it, rather than exchanging or trading it for other stable coins or crypto...     I refer you to that original Bitcoin Pizza purchase....   :)

Crypto will never be the future until it stops wrecking our environment

(4 edits)

With all due respect, did you even read my post/comparison?

Hmm...  Not that I'm 'triggered', but more trying to educate, so here we go...

1) ...actual paper / physical money / coins do enough to harm the environment - even down to the running of the minting machinery, and the chemicals and processes used to initially create notes and mint coins, let alone destroying old currency, and printing / minting new coins and notes, and to also sanitise and clean (repeatedly, for every single in-circulation coin and note in the wild, over time), administer, transport, etc them.  So the only difference is that with physical currency, the environmental impact (while also being high initially), is something that happens again and again, for the life of that currency (in a just as bad for the environment, but FAR more difficult to quantify) manner.

2) ...and in case you're not aware, there are only X number of Bitcoins left to 'mine', and will soon ALL have been mined - it's a finite supply, so once they're mined, no more resources will be used to mint them, and Bitcoin will simply become akin to a normal tradeable commodity.

3) ...add to this the fact that if people are trading on exchanges (as I do), the environmental impact is practically ZERO (Generally no physical blockchain transactions for trading within an exchange)...

4) ...Then add to this, the fact that Ethereum v2, along with BSC, Polygon etc, ALL use very, very low miner / TX resources...  (ETH's new POS is INCREDIBLY low, compared to original ETH POW, for example...)

Really, people who don't know enough about crypto currencies, and just repeat baseless or incredibly biased arguments, with NO comparisons to standard currency, are just helping the obviously biased governments, banks and naysayers to spread the mis-information - it's becoming really annoying...  (governments think crypto is VERY BAD, unless of course, THEY want to get in on the action by offering their OWN economy's digital equivalent currency - like the UK and other countries are currently trying)...

Look it up, read about it, WITHOUT simply repeating what you hear or are told, from a single biased source, and you'll see that you're simply helping to spread a very biased narrative - I too was concerned when the arguments regarding the (then) ridiculous amount of resources came to light, but things have changed - I read up on it extensively, and I'm now reassured.

People helping out with good causes, ie. running computer simulations on their PC's as part of a cell or farm, for protein folding, together consume an INSANE amount of power / affect the environment, and have been for decades, but I don't hear the same argument! - Heck, I even tried to help by doing this for a while, but the sheer amount of energy it consumed running at 100% CPU 24/7, was simply not affordable - so the exact same principle, compared to older mining requirements...

TL;DR - Read up on it, with an unbiased mindset - you might be surprised...   👍

(+1)

You are  not considering    the involved orders of magnitude.

A baseline for comparison is actual money cost to do something. How much does it cost to print a note, how much to mint a coin, how much to cryptomine   a   unit of cryptocurrency, how much to   transfer  said cryptocurrency to a new owner.

If you switch to a trust-based   wallet system only representing the actual currency   you lose all benefits from the cryptocurrency concept. You give control to the wallet company. Effectivly you would exchange  transfering  intangible   online money to  transfer intangible online creditpoints. The problem is, that the value that those creditpoints represent have no value at all (actually they represent how much heat you generated by burning other money to pay for your power bill). The value of cryptocurrency exists as a want to   be independent of banking and government control.   If you shift that to companies, those companies have to comply to laws of the govs they want to operate in. And  they will have to act as banks.  But to work as intended, the crypto has to be decentralized and independent.

Part of the mining is making transactions happen. Because  for the currency to be safe, it has to be not cheap in computational power. There is actually a very   deep flaw in design, that you could take over a currency, if you provide 51% of computational power.

All that being said, it is prohibitive to use crypto for small transfers. Just as it is prohibitve to mint 1 cent coins to pay for a car. The cost of say a dollar bill ranges about 5-10 cents and that bill has  a life expectancy of   6-20 years.   The cost of transfering money is   in the vicinity of   less than a dollar and a percentage charge. So lets say   30 cent for a dollar and 1 dollar for a 100 dollar transaction as upper bounds.

3 years ago the cost to make a transaction in bitcoin was around 300 bucks in power cost. 

As an investment it is too volatile, meaning, yes, you can make a fortune - or lose everything. As a money concept it fails miserably. And please do not compare it to projects like protein folding. Those protein folders do not sweep the market empty making my graphics adapter triple in price, because they put them in display-less computers running them 24/7 "mining"   value. They do not mine value, they mine hot air certificates. Quite literally.

Oh, and this warrants an extra reply and totally not because I forgot and did not want to edit:

You claim to know about crypto, but postulate, that bitcoin will just be a normal commodity being traded, once the last coin has been mined.

With that statement you have shown that you know not very much about bitcoin. The currency becomes unusable, literally, should there no more mining be done. It is true, that the coins are finite, but   the very design states, that you earn coins by providing computational power to make transactions happen.  And that needed power grows, as the   currency   grows in age. Blockchains are not a good concept to be used on a large scale.

(1 edit)

Interesting...  ...I'm afraid I have to disagree, and warrant that perhaps YOU do not know as much about Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies as you think?

...It's simple.  As with any commodity being sold and bought, there is STILL investment already, and trading within, that market, for people to make (and lose) money, even yes, after all Bitcoins have been mined - those in circulation still have value, and are a tradeable commodity...

So regardless of Bitcoin not being a tangible, physical commodity, people are STILL going to buy and sell it, even after all coins are mined. As far as I understand, an inability to mine new coins does not dictate the death of the currency?

In this respect, YES, it will essentially be tradeable as a normal 'finite' supply commodity, for all intents and purposes.  It still holds value because there is investment and wealth within the eco-system, people are holding X amount in value of Bitcoin, and people will sell (either at loss, or gain) every day, the exact same way that people trade in finite stock market assets...

Even now, more bitcoins do not need to be mined, for me to trade (and profit from trading it), so why would that stop? - one investor makes a bad call, another profits - it's the way of all investment markets, regardless of having more supply or not...

...and yes, NOTHING is tangible/actual liquidity until you actually sell it, even company stocks and shares, and the same goes for Bitcoin.  The value of the commodity, and in the 'stock' so to speak, has been injected / set by the investment level in the 'coin' since its creation.

(+1)

I know enough to know that the concept in it's foreseeable future will not fly. I does not scale up, it cannot scale up.  It has no intrinsic value if used as intended. There is only the bigger fool snowball value. You buy it, because you think you can sell it to a bigger fool. Do not get me wrong, this could work for decades.

The use as intended is to actually pay with the stuff. That was possible in the beginning. There you see the failing in scalabilty. Because after the tech was adopted and people started really using it, even trading it as a commodity, it became literally unusable for it's intended purpose. Decentral money.

The reason it became unusable were and are twofold.   The high volatile value due to the commodity trading. And the more important fact that as a crypto currency you have to do crypto and that cannot be cheap.  If it were cheap in computation time, it would not be crypto, it would not be safe,  you could misuse the decentral design and forge all you want. You need 51% of the computation power in the net to cheat. That is the safe guard. But this very safe guard makes it prohibitve to use. I have to pay for power and hardware to compute  for a transaction.   For regular money that costs less than a cent.  The additional costs are insurance and other stuff and because banks are too pricy. For a crypto currency that costs an ever growing amount of power. The more users you have, the more. You could fine tune, even by orders of magnitude, but  a single transaction in bitcoin 3 years ago cost the then power cost of  300 €. I do not know the current price estimates. That costs are not payed directly  of course. It is hidden in the commodity trading.

Bitcoin will collapse if the coins are mined. The design of the currency actually had the end of mining in  mind, so transaction costs are payed inside the system. You do not mine the new coins, you mine the transactions in a sense, and get payed for that. But think about it,  if no one actually uses the currency as a currency, but only as a virtual commodity, the system is dead. Asfarisiknow, if less people do the mining, you also need less computation power. That would be good ... but it would also come with the security risk. If you only need a fraction of the power, you can corrupt the whole system easily.

And a quite big risk is the outright ban of the stuff. Because, at the end of the day, having a thing like bitcoin is like having proof of ownership of a certificate   of how much energy you wasted on hot air. Literally. If you have the coin, it is you who paid for the electrical bill.   Countries are trying to get green. Adoption of crypto is the opposite. If we can ban ivory, we can ban crypto. And at least the mining of bitcoin is banned in some countrys.

Another risk is the meta inflation.  How many "coins" are there currently?   It feels like a new one is invented daily.

(Stocks have an intrinsic value or rather, a reason why some people want them. One is voting power in the company. The other is   the money you get each year from the shares from the company.   If you have no primal users, you cannot have the parasitic trade market. Bitcoin has no primal users. Not anymore. This fact just has not cought up yet to the people trading in it. There are enough people advocating it naivly or with ill intent.)

You cannot disagree with a fact dude

(+1)

I have read up on it with an ubiased mindset and that's why I'm against crypto. I used to be for it before I realized how harmful it is to our environment and unstable of a currency. The worth flucuates too much to be reliable and to make crypto our main is to basically doom the Earth (granted capitalism is already destroying it slowly)